‘That mediation proceedings are confidential is taken as axiomatic. What is said and done in the course of a mediation remains there. The same goes for documents of whatever kind, and their contents, created for the purposes of the mediation. In the above case Master Howarth appears to have qualified these propositions to some extent.’

‘Madeleine Reardon, barrister of 1 King’s Bench Walk, considers the role of mediation in the course of family proceedings, practical issues arising therefrom and, in particular, confidentiality of the mediation process.’

‘The claimant bank brought a claim for professional negligence against the defendant firm of solicitors. The claimant’s solicitors sent a letter to the defendant’s solicitors stating that they were accepting the defendant’s offer to settle contained in a “ without prejudice save as to costs” letter (“WPSAC letter”) and enclosing a draft Tomlin order. A series of without prejudice letters and conversations followed. The defendant’s solicitors wrote reiterating the terms of their offer of settlement. Subsequently, the claimant’s solicitors sent a without prejudice letter containing a CPR Pt 36 offer. The parties differed as to the effect of the claimant’s Part 36 offer on the defendant’s WPSAC letter. The defendant contended that the claimant’s Part 36 offer was a counteroffer and, in law, had the effect of rejecting its WPSAC letter so that thereafter, it was not open for acceptance.’

‘The ‘without prejudice’ privilege refers to the inadmissibility of any party communications targeted toward settlement. The objective of this privilege is to encourage parties engaging in settlement consideration, by ensuring any information disclosed in the pursuit of settlement cannot be submitted in litigation proceedings (see Lord Griffiths in Rush & Tomkins v GLC [1989] 1 AC 1280).’

“When a litigator enters into settlement discussions, the general rule is that the content of those communications are protected by the Without Prejudice Rule and cannot be relied upon as evidence in court if the case doesn’t settle. This rule, however, does not constitute a blanket ban. In this note James Barnard reminds us of the Without Prejudice Rule framework, its recognised exceptions and how the Supreme Court case of Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd [2010] UKSA 44 created another wide-ranging exception.”

“A party that referred the court to a term of an offer made by it pursuant to CPR Pt 36 waived its without prejudice privilege and could not prevent the remaining terms of the offer from being referred to the court.”

“A person threatened another with proceedings for infringement of a registered trade mark within section 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 if he stated or implied that he would bring a claim if the other did not agree to the terms he proposed. The test to be applied was whether a reasonable recipient would understand the statements made to indicate nor merely an assertion of legal rights but an intention to enforce those rights.”

“Facts communicated between parties in the course of ‘without prejudice’ negotiations which, but for the ‘without prejudice’ rule, would be admissible as part of the factual matrix or surrounding circumstances as an aid to construction of the resulting agreement, were admissible in evidence, as an exception to the rule, in a subsequent dispute between the parties as to the proper meaning of a clause in the agreement.”

“There was not, and need not be, an exception to the ‘without prejudice’ rule such as to permit evidence of ‘without prejudice’ communications and discussions to be given if there was a dispute about the interpretation of a written settlement agreement.”

“While information disclosed under compulsion in matrimonial ancillary relief proceedings was not admissible in criminal proceedings, admissions made in withoutprejudice negotiations were not inadmissible.”

“A party to ancillary relief proceedings was not entitled to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to withhold information about his income and assets that exposed him to a risk of prosecution but since he would in those circumstances be acting under compulsion the information he provided would not be admissible against him in criminal proceedings.”

“The House of Lords has confirmed that negotiations conducted on a ‘without prejudice’ basis should not be brought up in court unless under very unusual circumstances. The Lords confirmed that there was a good public policy reason for the protection.”

“An offer by a squatter to buy the property from the owners in a letter marked ‘without prejudice’ could not be used as evidence that she had acknowledged the owners’ title to the property so as to defeat her claim to adverse possession.”

“Where an occupier disputing possession proceedings made an offer to the owners to buy the property in a ‘without prejudice’ letter, which was rejected, but later claimed that the title of the property had passed to her because of 12 years’ adverse possession, the owners could not rely on the letter as evidence that she had acknowledged their title to the property so as to defeat her claim.”